New directions for the Fed in 2015

The big decision for the Fed next year will be if they should start raising interest rates. Remember that the fed is charged to try to maintain price stability and full employment. This chart shows unemployment and inflation along with the Fed’s inflation target (in blue) and the unemployment rate consistent with stable prices (in pink). The economy has improved without inflation over the last five years.

The argument for raising rates is that it is necessary to control inflation. This this post from The Economist for example. I disagree for a few reasons:

As the chart below shows, over the last 20 years actual inflation has spent a good deal of time below a band around 2% inflation except and only brief episodes above, suggesting that the Fed is too hawkish on average.

There is mounting evidence (for example this note published by the Fed) that the recessions, the possible outcome for raising rates prematurely, can involve permanent reductions in the level of output. Simply put, if you have a million people working for a year they make a certain amount of stuff. If there is a recession and they are out of work, they don’t make up all of the lost output once the economy recovers. To take this risk the threat to price stability must be substantial.

Of course, what I think doesn’t matter, only the opinions of the voting members of the FOMC count. Every year a shifting cast of regional presidents serve as voting members on the FOMC. This year sees 4 new presidents along with the chair of the NY Fed who is always a voting member in deference to that bank’s constant connection with the markets. We have two members I would characterize as patient about raising rates and two who seem eager

Richmond Fed’s Jeffrey Lacker says that “the unemployment rate is an accurate gauge of labor underutilization. ” Suggesting that rates can rise soon. Interestingly, he not only expects to raise rates, he wants the Fed to sell securities held under quantitative easing, not just cease to purchase. “I believe the Fed’s efforts to normalize monetary policy must include the sale of mortgage-backed securities in order to reduce the Fed’s role in credit allocation. ” Lacker speech

On the other hand Chicago’s Charles Evans sees risks to tightening: “I am concerned about the possibility that inflation will not return to our 2 percent PCE target within a reasonable period of time.” And he emphasizes caution: “As I think about the process of normalizing policy, I conclude that today’s risk-management calculus says we should err on the side of patience in removing highly accommodative policy.” Evans speech

At the Federal Reserve bank of Atlanta Dennis Lockhart believes the United States will approach conditions consistent with full employment by late 2016 or early 2017 and in his view undershoot of the inflation target is currently a bigger risk than overshoot. Lockhart speech

The New York Fed president William Dudley seems to be willing but not eager to raise rates next year: “The consensus view is that lift-off will take place around the middle of next year. That seems like a reasonable view to me. But, again, it is just a forecast. What we do will depend on the flow of economic news and how that affects the economic outlook” Dudley speech

In assessing inflation expectations, I currently put more weight on survey-based measures of inflation expectations as opposed to market-based measures. Survey-based measures have been generally stable, consistent with inflation expectations remaining well-anchored. However, market-based measures, such as those based on breakeven inflation derived from the difference between yields on nominal versus Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS), have registered declines over the past few months, even on a 5-years forward basis. Research done by my staff suggests that much of this decline in market-based measures of inflation compensation reflects a fall in the inflation risk premium—that is, what investors are willing to pay to protect themselves against inflation risk. Adjusting for the fall in the inflation risk premium, inflation expectations appear to have declined much less than implied by TIPS inflation breakeven measures.

If he is using this as a reason to raise rates, I cannot agree. First of all, surely a decline in inflation risk premiums means that the market is less concerned about sudden jumps in inflation. That is, the market is telling you that the market is not worried about inflation. I am not sure why a policymaker would want to discount that. Second, it is not clear that Survey based inflation expectations are indeed stable. See this chart of expectations for next year from the Consensus Economics survey.

Whatever is ahead, our next landmark is the final FOMC meeting of 2014 which will feature new forecasts from the committee members and a Janet Yellen press conference on December 17. Hopefully we will get more insight into the Fed’s plans then. In the meantime it is worth noting that for Fed Funds to get to what the median member expects of about 1% by the end of 2015 and they proceed in bite-sized 0.25% steps, they will need to start raising rates in their fifth meeting of the year in July. Given the Fed’s reluctance to surprise the markets, I would expect clear warnings at the March press conference at the latest.

Interestingly, the Fed Fund futures seem to expect less easing overall with year-end 2015 rates in the market at 0.5% which implies starting later or not raising rates at every meeting after they start.

Receive Posts via Email

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

All information contained herein is for informational purposes only. This is not a solicitation to offer investment advice or services in any state where to do so would be unlawful. Analysis and research are provided for informational purposes only, not for trading or investing purposes. All opinions expressed are as of the date of publication and subject to change. Astor and its affiliates are not liable for the accuracy, usefulness or availability of any such information or liable for any trading or investing based on such information.